tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News July 14, 2013 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
nan ne janeane. pick up a copy of my new book "clever fox." it is available ott barnes & noble and >> today a jury finds george zimmerman not guilty in the death of trayvon martin. we'll get the latest from sanford, florida. plus just when it looked like congress get more divided, it does. on immigration, house republicans reject the bipartisan plan passed by the senate. >> the house will do its own job in developing a immigration bill. >> why delay? why don't we get about the business on developing a bill? >> on obamacare, criticism of the president delaying part of healthcare reform. >> its provisions are unworkable. its timeline it's unworkable. regulations are unworkable.
>> house republicans driving this narrative are not concerned about a delay and the implementation of a law that they oppose. they want to kil to kill the bi. >> chris: republican steve king of iowa and democrat steve israel of new york join us. then the nsa leaker edward snowden asked for temporary asylum in russia. >> they still have the opportunity to do the right thing and return mr. snowden to the united states. >> chris: will the u.s. find a way to bring snowden to justice? plus, secretary of homeland security janet napolitano resigns. we'll sit down with chairman michael mccall, chairman of the homeland security committee. hello again from fox news in washington. george zimmerman is a free man this morning. he walked out of a sanford, florida, courtroom late last night after a jury cleared him
of all charges in the shooting death of 17-year-old trayvon martin. here was the moment when the jury's verdict was read. >> state of florida versus george zimmerman, verdict we the jury find george zimmerman not guilty, so say we all. >> chris: not guilty, but zimmerman's attorney says his client's safety will be a continuing concern. jonathan serrie is live outside the courthouse in sanford. jonathan? >> chris, there were reports overnight of protesters smashing windows and setting small fires in oakland, california, but here in sanford, florida, people on both sides of the issue heeded calls for peace in the wake of this emotionally-charged trial. in advance of the verdict, trayvon martin's asked for calm regardless of what the jury decided. when the jury handed down its not guilty verdict after more than 16 hours of deliberation,
the family's lawyer issued this statement. >> we are very, very, very saddened, but we accept the jury's verdict in this case. >> naacp leaders say they will ask the justice department to seek civil rights charges against george zimmerman. they say the neighborhood watch captain racially profiled 17-year-old trayvon martin the night of the fatal shooting. last night the teen's mother tweeted, "lord, during my darkest hour, i lean you. you are all that i have. at the end of the day, god is still in control. thank you all for your prayers and support. i will love you forever, trayvon. in the name of jesus." zimmerman's lawyers in this case was never about race, but about a man defending himself during a violent attack in which he feared for his life. >> obviously we are ecstatic with the results. george zimmerman was never
guilty of anything, except protecting himself in self-defense. i'm glad that the jury saw it that way. >> up until last night, zimmerman, although out on bond, had a 10:00 p.m. curfew, but after the not guilty verdict was announced at approximately 10:00 p.m. last night he was free to go home with his family. his lawyer said security is a concern, and although he didn't indicate what his client's immediate plans were, he suggested zimmerman would likely take time off with his family, relax and work on getting their lives back to normal. as for the six jurors in this trial, a court order remains in effect protecting their identities. a judge will later decide how long they'll remain anonymous. in the meantime jurors have not responded to requests from multiple media organizations seeking comment in the wake of this emotionally-charged trial. chris? >> chris: jonathan serri, thank
you. joining me live is the attorney for trayvon martin's family, darrell parks. thanks for joining us for "fox news sunday." i noticed that his parents were in the courtroom when the verdict was read. did they expect it wasn't going to go their way? when you told them what the verdict was, what was their reaction? >> well, number one, we as their counsel suggested they shouldn't be there. we know them extremely well, and made a decision they probably should go on home to miami so they could be in church this morning. they are in miami this morning for that. now, when i did reach out, their reaction was, wow, because this decision is really unbelievable. how can you not hold an armed man who killed an unarmed kid responsible for the death? and so it's just ideologically not right for that to happen. >> chris: how do you explain the
verdict? obviously these jurors sat in that courtroom for three weeks, heard all the evidence from the prosecution, all the evidence from the defense, how do you explain the jury's verdict? >> well, it's hard to explain. you know, in the course of a trial that lasts a couple weeks, so many different things and aspects came out, but also, too, these are six people, six people with various backgrounds, who brought their life experience here, and they have to judge whether or not they found george's actions in self-defense applicable for killing a young black child. at some point they identified, looked at the facts, and believed or disbelieved part of it, and sided with george zimmerman, decided that he should be acquitted. that's their decision. however, we accept the decision, with you we don't agree with their decision. >> chris: you say you do accept their decision. let me ask you, the naacp this morning is calling for the justice department to step in to this case and to bring civil
rights charges against george zimmerman, to say he violated the civil rights of trayvon martin. how do you and how do the parents feel about that idea? >> well, you know, the beauty of our country is that we have several tiers of government, several aspects of laws, and that at different times different laws in different places apply. for example, the criminal case here was here in sanford. in the event that there's a federal case, it will be in orlando. totally different dynamics. so that's a country that we live in. so you have to always understand that different laws apply at different times. different places apply at different times. so that would be a different arena. >> chris: and briefly, we've got less than a minute left, mr. parks, what do you, and more importantly what do the family of trayvon martin, what do they say to protesters out in the streets who are demanding justice for trayvon martin?
>> we ask them to remain very calm. trayvon's legacy is living on in what he stands for, his name stands for, is far bigger than george zimmerman's acquittal. and so they should remain calm. we should work to make america a bigger and brighter country. and all the good things that our country stands for. >> chris: mr. parks, i want to thank you for joining us on what clearly has to be a disappointing day for you. please extend to the martin family, regardless of how you felt about this trial, our thoughts and our prayers for them on the loss of trayvon martin. thank you so much, sir. >> thank you. good morning. >> chris: now to the showdown over immigration. the senate spent months working on and then performance-enhancing a bipartisan reform package, but this week house republicans made it clear they plan to deal with immigration on their own terms. joining us now republican congressman steve king of iowa, who calls the senate plan amnesty, and in new york,
congressman steve israel, head of the committee charged with winning back the house in between. i want to ask you to weigh in on today's big story, the not guilty verdict in the trayvon martin case. local authorities originally decided not to prosecute trayvon martin, then civil rights groups, even the president stepped into the case, and the decision was made to try to him. congressman king, let me start with you. should george zimmerman ever have been prosecuted? >> well, from what i've seen of the evidence, i would say no. my sympathy goes out also to the martin family and the zimmerman people for this ordeal they've been through. the evidence didn't support prosecution. and the justice department engaged in this. the president engaged in this and turned it into a political issue that should have been handled with law and order. i regret this happened. i'm sorry it was turned into a race issue by the media. otherwise it would have been tried, or not tried, depending on the laws and the language
that was there. this is unfortunate. >> chris: let me bring you into this, congressman israel. as we mentioned, president obama weighed in on this. take a look. >> my main message is to the parents of trayvon martin. you know, if i had a son, he'd look like trayvon. >> chris: congresswoman israel, was this case more about politics and race it was about seeking justice? how do you feel about the idea the naacp has suggested that the department of justice should consider civil rights charges against george zimmerman? >> well, mr. zimmerman had the right to a trial by jury. the naacp and others have the right to pursue their interests in terms of civil rights. no matter were you stand, this is a tragedy. it's a tragedy for a young man who was killed. it's a tragedy for a young man who killed and will carry that around with him for the rest of his life. it's an american tragedy. what we need to do is come together as a nation of laws, of courts, and of civil rights.
>> chris: gentlemen, let's turn to what we brought you to talk about today, and that's immigration. after house republicans met this week, speaker boehner said he won't bring the senate bill up for a vote. he wants to deal with this with bite size chunks. on the enforcement issue only, nothing on legalization until the border is secure. congressman king, you say it's a mistake for the republicans and the house to even do that. why? >> well, first, it's a mistake for republicans to believe the election was about immigration. i don't remember a debate between barack obama and mitt romney on immigration. i remember waking up the morning of the 7th of november after the election and hearing immigration was the reason that mitt romney wasn't president-elect on that day. this has been driven by open borders advocates doing this for a long time. >> chris: let me pick you up on this. why not even do border enforcement, which is whatrepubt doing? >> there's nothing we can do to pass a law to force the president to enforce a law he doesn't like.
he's proven it over and over again. we've taken him to court, voted on that in congress, and my amendment a few weeks ago. the president is not going to enforce the law. harry reid won't take up border enforcement. they want this for a political issue. this is a big boon for democrats. whether republicans are willing to go along with this or not, if we pass something, they'll still get the credit in the white house. the president has signed a bill. they'll continue to use this for political reasons. that's at the base of this. some republicans have bitten into it thinking we have to take it off the table by passing amnesty. >> chris: congressman israel, as you just heard from steve king, president obama in a sense gave republicans a new talking point this week in their opposition to immigration reform when he announced that he's not going to enforce the employer mandate on obamacare for a year. let's take a look at what house majority leader eric cantor had to say this week. >> if the president can
selectively enforce a provision under obamacare, what's to say he can't selectively enforce or not enforce a provisional security in the immigration package? >> chris: article 2, section 3, of the u.s. constitution says the president shall take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, and the healthcare law says that the mandate shall begin after december 31st, 2013. so congressman israel, let me ask you in effect the question that eric cantor asked. if the president selectively enforces obamacare, what's to say he wouldn't selectively enforce comprehensive immigration reform, yes, go ahead ahead with legalization, but not enforce the border measures. >> we shouldn't use this as yet another excuse to obstruct the majority of the american people who support comprehensive immigration reform. 68 senators who support comprehensive immigration reform. president george w. bush and barack obama who support it. let's get away from the sound
bite and understand fact. under this president, deportations are at an all-time high. border crossings at an all-time low. the senate bill, the product of bipartisanship, which i hope the house republicans will allow us to vote upon, provides $40 billion for new border enforcement, doubles the number of border patrol agents. senator mccain, who supports this bill, i believe, said this would be the most militarized border since the berlin wall. if 68 senators agree this is enforceable, and 87% of the american people want a comprehensive solution, and george bush and barack obama agree to this, the house republican majority should not obstruct it. having said that -- >> chris: sir, congressman israel, let me ask you to answer my direct question. what's to say with all this increase, $40 billion in new enforcement, it would be in the law, but the employer mandate was in obamacare. what's to say the president would enforce those new measures which he has he doesn't think
are necessary? >> if you take a look at the facts, how this administration has enforced border laws, and -- >> chris: i understand that, but what about enforcing -- >> my point is this, there's never a perfection in government. i agree with that. are we going to preserve the status quo? if you're going to make the enforcement issue, is this immigration system and enforcement really working? no. it's broken. that means we need to solve it on a bipartisan basis. however the republican leadership wants us to pursue this process, whether it's with one vote on a comprehensive bill, breaking it up into pieces, we will work with them to get to a bipartisan comprehensive solution that strengthens our borders and provides a tough but fair path to legalization for those who are here. >> let me bring congressman king back in. you say conservatives support a path to citizenship, including a dozen republicans in the senate,
including senator marco rubio, who support citizenship, give up their right to be called conservatives. highers what the conservative editorial page of the "wall street journal" said about you. the dumbest strategy is to follow the steve king anti-immigration caucus and simply let the senate bill die while further militarizing the border. the gop can support a true conservative opportunity society or become a party of closed minds and borders. dumbest strategy, closed borders? >> i suspect that's jason riley. we've gone around a few times on this. he's been i'd say less than objective with the original sources. ask him, and i'll say that's his language. i would push the "wall street journal's" opinion on this off to the side. the president is not enforce enforcing current immigration law. we've taken him to court. the northern district of texas -- >> chris: don't get too much in
the weeds, sir. >> we have more to clean up on this. the president is already refusing to enforce existing immigration law. he will not enforce the laws that we might pass. the president's problem, this is abexecutive branch problem, not a legislative branch problem, we can't fix with laws the things that the president refuses to do. >> chris: congressman israel, if house republicans kill immigration reform, i think it's fair say you'll hammer them as he try to win the house for democrats in 2014. hispanics make up only 10% of voting age residents in districts that are currently held by republican congressmen. 21%, they make up 21%, of voting age residents in democratic districts. so as a political matter don't
steve king and congressional republicans face a much bigger political threat for voting for immigration reform and risking a conservative backlash in primaries they do from voting against it? >> well, chris, i think the american people have had it with calculations based on what's good for one party and what's bad for the other party. we need to solve this problem. they did it in the senate. 68 senators from the right, john mccain, marco rubio, to the left, elizabeth warren. if they could put a solution ahead of partisanship, the house of representatives should do it as well. if they preserve the status quo, we'll hold them accountable for defying president bush, president obama, 68 senators, and 87% of the american people who want the ideology to be dispensed with and want to solve this problem on a bipartisanship -- >> chris: i have two minutes left. i want to ask you about one
final question. there was other big news this week. that is that the house passed a farm bill, but for the first time since 1973 they passed just the farm subsidy act at this time and stripped out all funding for food stamps. the problem is that the senate and president will never go along with that, and don't house republicans run the risk of once again being seen as insensitive to the needs of the poor? >> well, i think that was characterized by the congressional black caucus and hispanic caucus on thursday in the wrong fashion. i opposed splitting them because it takes out of our hands the ability to reform the food stamp program and goes into perpetual motion mandatory spending type of situation. so i think they characterized it wrong. i went over and told them that. i'm opposed to doing this, because i want to reform it. they wanted unlimited food stamps. the truth 8 emerge. it political sized the farm bill
for the first time in a long time. >> chris: the cost of the food stamp program has doubled since 2008. back in 2008, $40 billion a year being spent on food stamps. last year, $80 billion being spent on food stamps. steve king is talking about cutting $20 billion out of an $800 billion budget for food stamps over the next 10 years. $20 billion out of $800 billion. is that really so drastic? >> the cost of the -- the agricultural subsidies have gone up. look, we've always had a bipartisan understanding that if we can find the resources for growing food, we need food for people down on their luck. i have constituents out on long island who rely on that assistance. we've always had a bipartisan accord since the 1970s. it's not a matter of the
congressional black caucus or the congressional hispanic caucus, steve. virtually every farm organization, ag organization was against breaking this apart because it's bad policy, and it's injected bipartisanship into an already bad congress. >> chris: nsa leaker edward snowden changes his tune, is now seeking asylum in russia. what can the u.s. do about it?
>> chris: nsa leaker edward snowden on friday making his first public appearance after three weeks in a moscow airport. snowden now says he wants asylum in russia while he arranges travel to latin america. here to discuss the snowden case and more, chairman of the homeland security committee, e, representative michael mccaul. what do you think about what the white house is calling his propaganda platform to make his announcement? >> every day this fugitive is on the run, he puts the united states security more at risk. he's a traitor to this country. he took an oath of loyalty to the united states, now running for cover with our enemies. the idea that he's in russia, i'm sure the russians love this. they're making a mockery of the united states foreign policy. i'm sure every day they're extracting more and more
information from this man. at the same time, it's a test of our foreign policy, our diplomacy, and i would give the administration low marks for what they've done so far. i think the irony here, this is a man who's a defender of freedom supposedly, and yet he's running for cover in countries in the world that oppress freedom, whether it's china, russia, now he's talking about going to venezuela. i think this is a -- you know, i think the administration could be doing more. >> chris: let me ask you directly. what should the president do to make it clear to the russians that we don't want give him safe haven? it's a complicated relationship between the u.s. and russia. how far should we be willing to go in putting overall registrationrelationson the linn case? >> economic, trade, the restart button with putin was a mistake. clearly it's not working in the
case, because we have no diplomacy leverage over russia. they're thumbing their nose at the united states. that's not diplomacy through strength. it's been the pattern of this administration to try to negotiate without strength. i think now we're seeing the repercussions of that strategy. >> chris: let me turn to another subject. janet napolitano surprised washington on friday when she announced she's stepping down as the secretary of homeland security. i thinking she was generally seen as being effective, imposing order over a very unwieldy department, 240,000 employees spread over 22 agencies. on the other hand, she was criticized for her comments about how secure the border is, and also for her reluctance right from the start to even use the word "terror." take a look at this. >> you think about both from the man-caused and nonman-caused incidents, but particularly on the man-caused, the weapon of
mass destruction involving a hazardous chemical or biological weapon is very high up on the scenarios that we are seeing. >> chris: i love that, "man-caused incidents." congressman, how do you think that napolitano did generally over 4 1/2 years as secretary of homeland security? what impact do you see her resignation having at a moment when immigration reform and border enforcement are at the height of the national agenda? >> i have respect for that position. we disagreed on many issues, particularly when it came to the border. she would go around saying, it's never been more secure. i took just the opposite position, that it is not secure. that's why we passed the border security results act out of my committee to achieve that, to get that done. so i think -- and also with respect to morale, morale has been very low in the department. i think there's an opportunity to get a real leader in, who can work with house republicans on
security issues, on enforcement issues, and someone who will garner the respect, you know, of the congress which right now there's a real problem with that. lastly to talk to your point about taking war on terror out of the vernacular, taking out radical islam. if we can't define the enemy, we can't defeat it. giuliani testified before my committee on boston talking about that very issue. the narrative of administration that al-qaeda is on the run, bin laden is killed, war on terror is over, let's downgrade the military, let's pull out, the pre-9/11 threat narrative thrown out there is dangerous because it does not reflect reality. >> chris: are you suggesting that if the president were to name a man or woman who's seen as tough, law and order, tough on reinforcement, that might reassure republicans on the question of border security in this immigration debate? >> absolutely.
again, i think there's an opportunity for this administration. bout this. very much willing to names thrown out there like the admirable of the coast guard, and -- >> chris: we put a lot of money in creating this graphic. let's put up some names being mentioned as possible replacement. craig fugate is the current head of fema. new york city police commissioner ray kelly. you mentioned bill bratton. thad allen, former head of the coast guard. is there a favorite candidate who you think would reassure republicans on both the war on terror and border enforcement and immigration? >> yeah. it's ultimately the president's choice. i'll tell you thad allen has testified before my committee on multiple occasions, an admirable of the coast guard, very well respected. ray kelly, well respected.
a lot of people are pushing for him. braxton as well. any three of those coming in would gain a lot of respect from the house republicans, help us at a time when we're trying to push this border security measure out of the house of representatives. >> chris: let me switch subjects on you. there were reports this week that the president is growing increasingly frustrated with afghan president hamid karzai and is now seriously considering speeding up the pullout, the withdrawal of u.s. troops, not to the end of 2014, but perhaps to the summer of 2014, and that instead of having a residual force after 2014, somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 troops, that in fact we would go to the zero option. here was the white house spokesman jay carney on that subject this week. >> one option is no troops. i'm not saying that's a preferred option. i'm just saying to suggest otherwise would be to make
assumptions about negotiations that have not reached a conclusion. >> chris: congressman mccaul, how do you feel about getting out of afghanistan faster, getting out after 2014 for good? >> well, it's another failure of diplomacy with the karzai administration. their policies to negotiate with the taliban to resolve afghanistan, i think that's a very troublesome strategy, if you will. the zero option, in my judgment is no option, because the zero option takes us completely out of afghanistan. i understand we're all war fatigued, ready to wind down the forces, but the problem with that is it leaves no counterterrorism footprint behind. so we have no ability to deal with future bin ladens that may pop up in a safe haven of afghanistan that we saw when we pulled out of afghanistan the last time defeating the soviets. i don't want to go back to that strategy. we did the same thing in iraq with the status of forces agreement. now iraq is becoming a huge
problem. if we -- if we renege on our commitment to the afghan people, the afghan military, pull the rug out from under them, allow the taliban to come in and seek retribution, kill them, and put afghanistan in chaos as a safe haven all over again, that does a great disservice to what our troops have tried to do the last 10 years, the great gains they've made in afghanistan. >> chris: one last subject, on this very busy sunday, congressman mccaul. what do you make of the developments in egypt over the last week? we saw the mass shooting of islamic protesters in the streets. we also saw the creation of a nutrition government with some establishment figures who were somewhat respected. generally speaking, are you encouraged or discouraged by what you've seen the last week or two in egypt? >> i've been encouraged. i'll tell you why. when the arab spring occurred in
egypt, libya, across northern africa, now we're dealing with this in syria, to see the muslim brotherhood come to the heights opposing sharia -- imposinger sharia on their people, i've been greatly troubled by this arab spring becoming an arab winter. the military in egypt is the most stabilizing factor in egypt. we should support the military in their efforts in ousting the muslim brotherhood, in arresting the muslim brotherhood, and bringing a more secular moderate form of government to egypt. we have a lot of strategic interests over there. remember the relationship with israel, with the peace accords that were struck? that's very important to -- >> chris: we have 10 seconds left. let me just ask you, so you would very much oppose cut off u.s. military aid to egypt? >> i think the administration needs to make the case as to why we should suspend the aid.
i'm in agreement with support the military, the most stabilizing factor in egypt to go against the sure muslim muslm brotherhood and sharia. >> chris: congressman, always good to talk with you, sir. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: up next, george zimmerman is found not guilty in the death of trayvon martin. we'll ask our sunday panel whether this case should have ever been prosecuted.
>> we the jury find george zimmerman not guilty so say we all. >> chris: george zimmerman reacting to the not guilty verdict in the trayvon martin case late last night in sanford, florida. time now to bring in our sunday group. bill crystal of "the weekly standard," former democratic congresswoman jane harmon, gop mastermind, karl rove, and charles lane of the "washington post." local authorities originally decided not to prosecute george zimmerman, then civil rights groups, president obama, weighed in. chick ichuck is one of our court watchers. should this case have ever gone to florida? >> i think the governor in florida who ultimately made the decision to pick a special prosecutor probably on balance
made the right call even in view of this verdict. there are things in life, political facts you have to respond to, and this turns out to be a mechanism to get all the facts on -- give everybody a fair trial, etc. in hind set, also what's really clear is the overcharging of this as a second-degree murder. there was much clearer questions as to whether it was a former less of homicide, like manslaughter, something like to, but the second-degree murder was over the top. >> chris: karl, your thoughts on the prosecution of this case, and las the call by the naacp right now for the justice department to charge george zimmerman on civil rights charges. >> yeah. well, this was a tragic death of a young man. we've now had a long court case that riveted the country. i hope that this is the end. president obama politicized this at the beginning, i believe, unfortunately, by injecting himself into it, saying that if he'd had a son, it would look like trayvon martin.
we need a president to bring us together, not rip us apart. i hope the justice department does not respond to the ill-advised recommendation of the naacp to continue this controversy. >> chris: i want to cover a different story, which normally would be huge, and that is that harry reid in the senate is threatening to impose a nuclear option, to change the rules not by the normal 67 votes, super majority, but by a simple majority of 51 votes and 100. and this is because he's objecting to the filibuster of executive nominations to the cabinet, to various agencies by republicans. you were in the house where it was simple, 51% -- you know, 50 plus 1% was a majority. now you've got super majorities. what do you think of making a simple majority rules? >> the proposal is to make it
simple majority for confirming the president's nominees to cabinet departments, not for purposes of legislation. >> chris: or judges. >> yes, or judges. the republicans had the same idea a few years ago, backed away. this is an ongoing discussion. i think it's a closed case, but i think it's outrageous that cabinet departments don't have leaders for years and years and years, and the house -- the senate could avoid this by agreeing on a time limit for voting up and down on nominees. those who don't like them should vote no. if there's no way forward, i think if i were in the senate, i'd make a vote for this. i think it's going to be very disruptive. i think sadly it is just one more piece of evidence about the toxic partisanship that makes capitol hill so unpleasant now. >> chris: all right. now to the subject i've been looking forward to all week, and that is immigration. bill, you and rich lowry o of te "national review" who had
disagreed on immigration reform in the past, issued a joint editorial this week. you came out, the joint editorial, kill ohe bill, in which you say about the senate gang of eight plan, passing any version would be worse public policy than passing nothing. house republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart, immigration reform. karl, you've been a big supporter of immigration reform. what do you think of brother crystal jumping ship? >> i'm not certain he jumped ship. no one thought the senate bill would be taken up and passed by the house. that's how the process works. they want to write their own bills. they've already passed a -- out of the judiciary committee, a
farm guest worker bill -- >> chris: they're saying enforcement only and nothing on the path to legalization until the border is secure. >> well, but that's ostensibly what the senate bill said. we can have an argument about whether it actually did that, but that's the same theory that the senate bill was on. what's interesting to me, the comments made by gowdy, at the bottom of this chain that has to work its way up. that's where the a lot of the work will begin. gowdy said we need a path to citizenship. we ought to have two paths. one path for people who want to become citizens and one for people who don't want to become citizens, but are here illegally, want to live or work -- you know, live out their lives here or go home. that's an interesting side that the house is likely to do something. is it going to look like the senate bill? probably not. that's what congress is about. >> chris: my idea that it would be a food fight has fallen apart. we have to let you talk. >> you don't have, to but it's
kind of you, chris. >> chris: it would be nice. >> i'm glad that karl has moved so far away from the senate bill. his organization has spent money promoting it. i think the house should pass separate bills. i have a problem going to conference with the senate bill, which is fundamentally misguided. i'm worried about establishment types, you know, telling the house guys, you'll be fine, just pass these little bills, and suddenly you're in conference, conference committee can be complicated and -- >> chris: what's fundamentally wrong with the senate bill? >> there's no promise, no likelihood in my view of serious enforcement, the magnet for people to continue coming when they get legalization remains. there's a huge increase of immigration in that bill. that's bad for working class and middle-class wages, economic opportunity in this country. i think that's something republicans need to get serious about. >> chris: congresswoman harman. >> i think my friend bill is leading his party on a suicide mission. the chamber of commerce, the
business roundtable, many republicans, including karl, favor a comprehensive bill. george bush is still for it. we should have passed it in 2007 when i voted for it. it didn't pass the congress. but there's negative immigration over the mexican border. everyone who looks at this thinks this will add tax and social security revenue, adds and decrease our deficit over a 20-year period -- >> chris: "wall street journal" talks about how it's going to increase growth. >> you know, it's tragic to think about 11-plus million people living in the shadows of this country, a country of immigrants, i'm a daughter of immigrants. good luck during a presidential election -- >> i think we'll do fine in the next presidential election and senate elections in 2014. it's so tragic. the president of the united states had 60 senators and huge majorities in the house. did he move a immigration bill to deal with the pressing this problem, the tragedy of these people in the shadows? i missed that, missed president obama doing anything about
immigration. >> chris: go ahead. >> i'm talking about the issue. i'm in my nonpartisan role as head of the wilson center, folks. immigration is not a partisan issue. it's fundamental to american values, what we are as a country. >> chris: all right. we did at least get a disagreement. not quite the players i thought, but in any case thank you. we have to take a break. when we come back, edward snowden now asking russia for political asylum. our panel tackles how to bring the nsa leaker to justice next. [ male announcer ] at montrose pet hospital,
anarchy meets order. working with at&t, doctors set up a broadband solution to handle data and a mobility app to stay connected with their business. so they can run the office... even when they're not in the office. where do you want to take your business? call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪
airport. >> chris: white house spokesman jay carney none too happy with edward snowden seeking political asylum in russia and that authorities there allowed the nsa leaker to hold a news conference. we're back now with the panel. congresswoman harman, when you were in the house, you were the top democrat on snowden seeking asylum in russia and what can the obama administration do. they allowed him to hold a news conference, what can they do bit? >> and president obama called putin on friday and had a number of conversation on a couple of things, including the oh, oh limb picks. i have no sympathy for snowden and a knew poll shows a lot of americans do. i don't know you how he can claim he needs asylum. that is the to escape for persecution. i don't think he being persecuted here. i think the rushes shaps
should return him and fairly tried in our courts. >> chris: how should we get him here? >> i don't know what happened in the phone call but i hope he got tough. i don't think they should be harboring this guy and they shouldn't give him asylum if they wanted reasonable relationships going forward. my personal view it's pretty do darn serious. it violates our laws and he needs to be convicted of those charges. >> chris: carl, you had to deal with vladimir putin in the white house. what can we do? >> we have a lot of leverage, are we going to use it? they like weakness. i suspect that putin was watching the news conference and enjoying every single second that the united states was being tweaked but we ought to go after him hard.
i don't understand why they didn't jerk his passport until he got to moscow. it would have been a lot easier to dealt with him. >> chris: you say there are a lost things we could do? >> i would go pretty far. there are a lot of things they need from us. you mentioned the oh limb picks, support for trade agreements. there are things we could do with regard to their interests that could be a lot more damaging to them. >> chris: you wut this at the top of agenda? >> i would. this guy in my personal opinion, a traitor. he violated laws. he broke his oath. if he was a true whistleblower he should have gone to congress or gone to the administration and said, here, i've got deep concerns about this. this was a self soggy, he a liar. i had the capability without warrant to search or seize and read your communication which has was
not true. he didn't have the ability or authority without a warrant to do that. >> chris: let's turn to janet napolitano by announcing she is stepping down as the secretary of homeland security to predator pretty good job. she is going to run the university of california system. there was criticism she wasn't tough enough to border security or war on terror. you think that is legitimate? >> it's inevitable. in terms have her rhetoric, she seemed to bend over backwards not to use the word terrorists. in a job like dhs that is not fit. man-caused incidents, all of them caused by men. >> that is true. >> she was in the crossroads in all part of the pressure of pro immigration groups, border security types. its thankless job almost as
head of the university of california. it does give the president an opportunity in the midst of this border security debate to send a signal by his nomination for her successor. you put names that are tough on crime reputations and have a v able folks. >> so there is an opportunity for him to do that. >> chris: let me ask you about that. i thought it was interesting that congresswoman was saying about border enforcement he could put a real law in type of do you think that is true or the distrust by republicans of barack obama is they don't care who is in the job? >> i think that is right. we can what the president asked us to do. again, this isn't just generalized distrust. just in the last two weeks, he has raised major proposals obamacare.
can anybody that that she note going to wave pieces of legislation he doesn't like. border security? >> there have been very high deportations under president obama. >> chris: i've got bring this in. a number of names have been mentioned as possible replacements including janet napolitano secretary homeland security including yours. are you interested in the job? >> i have a plum job heading the wilson center. there are lots of good names out there. >> chris: you didn't answer the question. would you take it? are you interested? >> i am interested in keeping the job i got, thank you very much. >> is there a vote to confirm. >> janet napolitano whom i've known for 25 years, she was attorney general, there is no way she is not tough on crime. i think she tried hard to manage this behemeth
reporting to congress. you got to fix the way that works. the next person hopefully will help with that but strong law enforcement. >> i think she was weak on border enforcement and a woman who couldn't bring herself to mouth the word terrorist. >> that was corrected later. the president corrected it too. >> chris: you think a good choice, thad allen. >> i think thad allen. >> the guy who ran katrina. >> i subside this. the less the president makes this about getting his immigration bill done, the better off we're going to be. >> chris: thank you panel. see you next week. remember our discussion continues every sunday on panel plus. find it right here on our website at foxnews.com. make sure and follow us on
"clever fox." in the circuit court for seminole county florida, state of florida versus george zimmerman, verdict, we the jury find george zimmerman not guilty. >> welcome to a special live edition of huckabee. george zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury last night of six women who heard evidence, were instructed as to the law, and acted with clarity. now, they're not heroes, they're just citizens doing one of the most difficult and thankless tasks that any american has called upon to perform. judging the guilt or innocence of another human being. george zimmerman is not a hero. he was a young